Petrol Addict: strongly detox! (Petro-addictive)

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79001
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10933

Petrol Addict: strongly detox! (Petro-addictive)




by Christophe » 09/02/11, 16:19

Greenpeace awareness campaign on our pet dependence, in other words: our dependence (and that of our economies) on oil (but also on coal, gas ... in short, on fossil fuels).

I am happy to see that Greenpeace is finally interested in something other than nuclear, whales or oil spills and aims for the greatest consumer "good" (good, good bad ... hihi) of our societies. .

Video intro: https://www.econologie.com/petrol-addict ... -4328.html

The cartoon from 1:00 is really well done: fast and conceptual as it should be for the general public! To balance with Areva's info currently on TV at 15M €: https://www.econologie.com/forums/j-adore-la ... 10441.html


Image

Official website: http://vivement-la-desintox.com/

To go deeper: links between economic growth, GDP and the price of oil : https://www.econologie.com/croissance-pi ... -4090.html

Image
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79001
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10933




by Christophe » 25/02/11, 12:21

A dossier on petro-dependence in the latest Terra Economica:

Extracts here: http://www.terra-economica.info/Tous-ac ... 15950.html
(subscription required)

Otherwise you have to buy the paper version.

Image

To think about it, besides the savings, there is this: https://www.econologie.com/forums/microalgue ... 10514.html
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79001
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10933




by Christophe » 02/05/11, 12:56

Found 2 greenpeace "edutainment" spots on global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3tm9H2oEWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfvE0odc0k
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 02/05/11, 14:48

Greenpeace does not present effective functional solutions, which work without CO2 or pollution, for renewables which then completely replace nuclear and petroleum at the same time, a statement declared monstrous by Sarkozy !!
Greenpeace participates in the silence on these simple concrete solutions that work.

So I repeat the links of these great muffled solutions, to read with great care.

https://www.econologie.com/forums/post201163.html#201163
Canadian links that I have however written more than 100 times on econology, realization of the Canadian well type well scientifically designed and heated by solar thermal in summer to recover winter heat and obviously picolo and almost all ignore that geothermal with pump is actually average solar thermal between summer and winter and that the heat pump can be removed, replaced by simple solar collectors, to store summer heat for winter, so well designed, which is rare and picolo, with others, must have totally false ideas about the diffusion of heat and therefore read carefully :
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur ... %A4higkeit
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusivit%C3%A9_thermique
and assimilate all the figures and formulas of this basic course before any reaction because it is applied in the concrete cases given:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduction_thermique

Renewable energies are accessible, given the amount of sun received per m2, currently wasted and recoverable with a variety of methods, even simple as thermal storage underground (geothermal amplified by the sun) for heating and even cogeneration of energy by thermoacoustics also efficient than solar:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustique
http://thermoacoustique.free.fr/
http://www.io.com/~frg/
http://www.io.com/~frg/taceng.html
http://www.io.com/~frg/tar.htm
http://www.io.com/~frg/tac.htm
and real and concrete storage of summer underground heating for winter:
http://www.dlsc.ca/DLSC_Brochure_f.pdf
http://www.dlsc.ca
These simple and efficient methods are neglected and allow us to have only solar renewable instead of nuclear.

https://www.econologie.com/forums/post201272.html#201272
These links are examples of achievements that work for homes but are good for greenhouses, even better.
http://www.dlsc.ca/DLSC_Brochure_f.pdf
http://www.dlsc.ca

You have to look at their entire site because with detailed information in English, operating curves.
Scientifically their realization is the best without complications.


I have not seen anything in France on the internet and elsewhere outside Switzerland, Germany it is more complex with very large hot water tanks and therefore much more expensive, not keeping heat as long.
You need a basement where water does not circulate quickly, because otherwise the heat leaves with it, unless to inject products, cement, or other rendering watertight at the periphery !!
But if no one realizes, there will never be anything in France.
We measure our delay on this subject.


or you have to look at all the links on econology, I put a lot of them, wikipedia google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_store
http://www.solites.de/download/03-06.pdf

http://www.google.fr/search?client=fire ... =&aql=&oq=

The tangible mechanisms are simple:
diffusion of heat over distance like the square root of time
either in winter 3 to 6m (depending on the soil) (and on a day 20 to 50cm) and therefore the storage volume must be on a volume of dimensions larger than this diffusion length is 10m aucube or 25 holes at 2m each other on 10x10 = 100m2 at 12 to 16m deep for a pavilion or greenhouse of comparable need.
We do not find all the summer heat especially if the dimensions are small but it is simple to oversize on the surface the cheap summer sensors. (in any case this heat is lost on roofs without a sensor)

In Drake Landing for 52 pavilions, it is 144 on diameters from 30m to 35m deep which conserve the heat lost by diffusion over 3m (10000m3) much better with 52 per 15m2 of sensors per pavilion (garages). It is little by pavilion, a mini in my opinion for 1000m of altitude in cold continental climate and therefore it is missing a little, supplemented by boiler.

A simple method is to take a well-designed Canadian well (at least 3m deep and with this volume of earth close to 1000m3 to 3m around and to heat it in summer with cheap rudimentary solar collectors (16mm black plastic pipe). under glass, carbonate or transparent plastic heated to 60 ° C in summer).
http://www.apper-solaire.org/Pages/Expe ... 20minimal/
The price will be low (than that of the Canadian well or cheaper drilling with auger or perforator if the soil is not too hard).
Thus, the temperature of the fairly deep soil is raised above winter requirements.

This will be very easy for a greenhouse, especially since the desired temperature will not be too high and well insulated (double glazing).
For total security, with heating by wood boiler, storage reduces this consumption of wood, without taking the risk of non-operation due to insufficient storage (main risk: undersized, in the case of many Canadian wells, and circulation of underground water which takes the heat elsewhere to be blocked by injection of cement or resin making it watertight around the boreholes).


See as well all posts from:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post193672.html#193672
with the premonition on my part of the real risks of a Fukushima, one month before in February 2011:
Yes, but when we compare to the complexity of nuclear power with its Damocles sword of Chernobyl above our heads, which will happen sooner or later in France, since men cannot be infallible in perpetuity, we find this a little strong that it is more difficult to make holes 13 to 15m deep for perpetual heating than to make nuclear power plants which last only 40 years at best and are full of waste for centuries or even millennia !!! !
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 02/05/11, 15:12

dedeleco wrote:These simple and efficient methods are neglected and allow us to have only solar renewable instead of nuclear.

It doesn't have to be so obvious: What are all these (majority) countries that do not (or no longer) use nuclear energy doing?
Since the time, ..... if it is "simple and efficient" ???
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79001
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10933




by Christophe » 02/05/11, 15:27

??

If it's not nuke it's gas, oil or coal.

You say it yourself and quite rightly: these 3 lobbies are stronger than that of nuclear power ...
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 02/05/11, 16:11

Why did prehistoric men not use the petroleum or the coal which came out of earth very accessible and available in certain places ??
Because they were unaware of its existence and its possibilities of use !!

Like almost all, we ignore these possibilities which were even denied on econology at the beginning that we presented them because few have assimilated the notion of heat diffusion and conserving the wasted solar thermal heat of summer for winter seems miraculous and yet real and not new at all, even for the Romans who kept winter ice for summer without freezer and oil, and it's the same Roman method with the heat kept instead of ice !!

With in addition the lobbies, defended by pb2488, who take great care to misinform and push people into nonsense thanks to short-term solutions made easy, but capturing the user, like the all-electric that became ecological with heat pumps with or without a Canadian well, instead of solar thermal collectors which store the heat of summer for winter at a temperature remaining higher than that necessary in winter to heat.

This misinformation is such that almost all of us do not understand these solutions !!!!

and we see lots of ecological achievements with these very expensive basic errors perpetuated as an undersized Canadian well, as a heat pump with photovoltaic electricity on an improperly used Canadian well, and undersized thermal sensor, error due to the non-assimilation of the diffusion of the warmth, even by the pros who sometimes repeat like parrots without understanding, a bit like the pb2488 parrot which repeats the manipulations of its lobbies, etc ...
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 02/05/11, 18:36

Christophe wrote:If it's not nuke it's gas, oil or coal.
= simple and efficient. On the other hand, as Jancovici denounces, it is polluting, exhaustible and if you don't have one at home, it's restrictive.

Christophe wrote:You say it yourself and quite rightly: these 3 lobbies are stronger than that of nuclear power ...
And have, despite everything, failed to silence the IPCC.
In my opinion, lobbies are not the cause of the energy problem.
How do Canada, Norway, Brazil make their electricity?

dedeleco wrote:(...), a little like the pb2488 parrot which repeats the manipulations of its lobbies, etc ...
What manipulations?
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:

The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/05/11, 18:49

Those of pb2488 he specified (and that we all know here, by the way, you want a drawing ...)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79001
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10933




by Christophe » 02/05/11, 20:52

pb2488 wrote:And have, despite everything, failed to silence the IPCC.


How would they silence the IPCC? He never made them lose 1 copy ...

Studies on warming, climate, peakoil, depletion do not bother them at all, quite the contrary: it is an indirect way for them to increase the prices of fossil fuels ... so their profits ...

And then the most powerful lobby does not necessarily control everything ... with the best will in the world ... it's like you and me in everyday life: they have certain priorities ... and no other...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 147 guests